i've used 28 spoke with different lace pattens and different hubs with no problems. Oh and alloy nipples. Form a good relationship with a local builder.

Fully agree with Tintin, I raced for years on 28h M900's and when the original Mavic 220 wore out had a 232 snowflaked, have to admit B.I.T.D I was far better at climbing than tear arsing downhill....personally I wouldn't hesitate using one.

The Great Spoke Scam: In the early '80s a clever marketeer hit upon the idea of using only 32 spokes in wheels for production bikes. Because of the association of 32 spoke wheels with exotic, high-performance bikes, the manufacturers were able to cut corners and save money while presenting it as an "upgrade!" The resulting wheels were noticeably weaker than comparable 36 spoke wheels, but held up well enough for most customers.

Since then, this practice has been carried to an extreme, with 28-, 24-, even 16-spoke wheels being offered, and presented as it they were somehow an "upgrade."

Actually, such wheels normally are not an upgrade in practice. When the spokes are farther apart on the rim, it is necessary to use a heavier rim to compensate, so there isn't usually even a weight benefit from these newer wheels!

This type of wheel requires unusually high spoke tension, since the load is carried by fewer spokes. If a spoke does break, the wheel generally becomes instantly unridable. The hub may break too; see John Allen's article.

If you want highest performance, it is generally best to have more spokes in the rear wheel than the front. For instance, 28/36 is better than 32/32. People very rarely have trouble with front wheels:

Front wheels are symmetrically dished.Front wheels carry less weight.Front wheels don't have to deal with torsional loads (unless there's a hub brake).If you have the same number of spokes front and rear, either the front wheel is heavier than it needs to be, or the rear wheel is weaker than it should be.

i have a set of 24 spoke wheels, they have mostly been in my orange patriot, they did 2 holidays in morzine and alot of riding in wales before i had to replace the rear rim, and that was rock damage as opposed to a strength issue, and i'm not the lightest rider.

they were mavic x3.1 rims with a dt rear hub and a goldtec front, and they were a disc set up.

they builder is the most important "part"

_________________You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something in your life.

The Great Spoke Scam: In the early '80s a clever marketeer hit upon the idea of using only 32 spokes in wheels for production bikes. Because of the association of 32 spoke wheels with exotic, high-performance bikes, the manufacturers were able to cut corners and save money while presenting it as an "upgrade!" The resulting wheels were noticeably weaker than comparable 36 spoke wheels, but held up well enough for most customers.

Since then, this practice has been carried to an extreme, with 28-, 24-, even 16-spoke wheels being offered, and presented as it they were somehow an "upgrade."

Actually, such wheels normally are not an upgrade in practice. When the spokes are farther apart on the rim, it is necessary to use a heavier rim to compensate, so there isn't usually even a weight benefit from these newer wheels!

This type of wheel requires unusually high spoke tension, since the load is carried by fewer spokes. If a spoke does break, the wheel generally becomes instantly unridable. The hub may break too; see John Allen's article.

If you want highest performance, it is generally best to have more spokes in the rear wheel than the front. For instance, 28/36 is better than 32/32. People very rarely have trouble with front wheels:

Front wheels are symmetrically dished.Front wheels carry less weight.Front wheels don't have to deal with torsional loads (unless there's a hub brake).If you have the same number of spokes front and rear, either the front wheel is heavier than it needs to be, or the rear wheel is weaker than it should be.

A lot of that resonates with me. My 91 bikes all had 32 hole front rims, and 36 rears. My 95 bike(s) - 32 hole front and rear. My 91 bikes seem thoroughly bomb-proof, albeit as stock, not the last word in lightness. My 95 bike(s) - well on equivalent models have saved a fairly substantial weight over their 91 counterparts, the frames still feel reasonably robust - but perhaps not to quite the same degree as my 91 bikes. Wheels on my 95 bike were 32 / 32 Mavic 230s - not the last word in wheel robustness.

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:08 pmPosts: 1255Location: I know where the stash is – the secret's safe with me. The flying squad will never find us...

This is quite a timely thread as I'm contemplating getting round to building my own wheels for my autumn bike refurb. Might go for a 28 front/32 rear combination, but ultimately, this may depend on what rims and hubs are still available for an old frame running cantilevers.

As quoted, Sheldon Brown (although no longer around), talks heaps of sense, cuts through the hype and demystifies things that have been overcomplicated unnecessarily:

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum